On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:29:38 PM UTC-8, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 3:14:50 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> >
> > Add in through wounds, fragments unrecovered, and you have
> > an 'indeterminate' area.
> > --
> > Andrew Muzi
> > <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> > Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> I think there is a risk of interpreting indeterminant to mean they couldn't tell, rather than that they didn't say.
>
> Certainly for a suicide, if you don't have the gun available, there's a problem!
>
> For a homicide it would be very rare to mistake a rifle wound for a pistol wound - true there are some carbines that fire pistol rounds, are these really likely to be common murder weapons? They are not concealable or commonly carried by criminals.

It is rare for rifles to shoot pistol rounds and when they do they have higher velocities which are easily distinguished by the damage from the bullet.. It is extremely rare that rifles are used even in mass murders. The one in that school had the purp carrying an AR-14 I believe, but he committed all of the killings with a hand gun. ONE teacher with a handgun would have stopped that shooting on the spot. People that commit mass murders do so because they believe, rightfully in California at least, that they will be completely unopposed.

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:43:54 PM UTC-8, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:24:12 PM UTC-5, Tim R wrote:
>
> Some discussion earlier about the military mindset and tradition.
>
> I read a fascinating book about the evolution of the military long arm over time, and there was violent disagreement from the earliest days over the choice of calibre which continues to this day. The title escapes me.
>
> The original musket was in .69 caliber. By the Civil War this had shrunk to .58, over the bitter resistance of what they called gravel bellies. Soldiers could carry more ammo, so they British sshot more ammo, so somebody had to pay for, procure, and deliver more ammo.
>
> .45 caliber owned the late 1800s, with the .30 appearing near the end. The Phillippine conflict still had mostly trapdoor springfields in .45 but I the .30 Krag was used. Every reduction was fought ferociously by the oldtimers.
>
> There were extensive tests of lethality (sheep I think), range, and accuracy at Aberdeen Proving ground, and out to about 1000 yards the .276 did as well as the larger calibers.
>
> In Vietnam we went to .223, which I think is the sweet spot - smaller loses range and penetration, larger loses ability to carry enough ammo and recoil hurts accuracy for most soldiers. (I recently rewatched Zulu. Those rifles were Martini-Henrys in .577/.450, meaning they were a .577 cartridge case necked down to fire a .450 caliber 480 grain bullet. Recoil had to be extreme with that loading, and the average soldier probably weighed about 140..)
Recoil isn't very important. Women skeet shooter use 12 gauge full loads without having any problems shooting entire matches with guns that recoil a great deal more than the M1A. I couldn't even feel the recoil of the M1 carbine which shoots a 30 caliber round.

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:59:17 PM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:41:14 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 3:57:28 PM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 14:45:48 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >To get in the military you have to have a minimum IQ of 83 ...
> >>
> >> Nope.
> >> <https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/after-service/201801/are-military-members-the-lowest-our-low>
> >> US military does not use an IQ score, but instead uses the similar
> >> ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) test where the
> >> score is the applicants percentile score when compared to other
> >> applicants.
> >>
> >> "To qualify, recruits must score higher than roughly one-third of all
> >> who take the ASVAB. The lowest acceptable percentile score to join is
> >> 36 for the Air Force, 35 for the Navy, 32 for the Marine Corps, and 31
> >> for the Army."
> >>
> >> "By definition, the worst test taker who makes it into the military
> >> still scores higher than one-third of his or her peers. The military
> >> intentionally slices off the bottom third of test-takers, not allowing
> >> them to join."
> >>
> >> Tom. Bad news:
> >> "Pew reports that 98 percent of the enlisted force has at least a high
> >> school diploma."
> >> That puts you in the lowest 2% of the military.
> >> <https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2011/10/05/chapter-6-a-profile-of-the-modern-military/>
> >> See the section under "Education Levels" for more details. Maybe 2%
> >> is a bit optimistic:
> >> "About eight-in-ten active-duty military personnel are high school
> >> graduates or have completed at least a year of college or other
> >> postsecondary training. Nearly two-in-ten (17.9%) are college
> >> graduates or have an advanced degree, while only 0.6% never finished
> >> high school."
> >>
> >> Drivel:
> >> "Replacing a gunner who scores around the 20th percentile with one who
> >> scores around the 55th percentile improves the likelihood of hitting a
> >> target by 34 percent."
>
> >So once again Jeffy proves that he has never heard the old saying, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" or in the his case, "a horse's ass by any other name is still a horses ass." He wants everyone to believe that an intelligence test isn't an intelligence test.
> Well, yes. That's true. The IQ test results is an absolute number,
> where one is compared with an average IQ score of 100, based on the
> results of past testing. In the USofA, the average is 98. Close
> enough:
> <https://www.healthline.com/health/average-iq>
>
> For the military ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery)
> test, the score is relative to the distribution of scores
> (percentiles) from all other candidates being tested. This allows the
> test to be made more or less difficult, without changing the
> distribution. For example, if the military wants reject the lower 1/3
> of those tested, it can do so without much worry about the educational
> level of the applicants. For different backgrounds, the scores will
> probably be very different, but the distribution (percentiles) will be
> the same.
>
> Incidentally, there are quite a few ASVAB practice exams available
> online:
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=asvab+practice+test>
> I think this is the official practice test:
> <https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/asvab>
> Note that there are 3 versions of the test. You might want to try one
> to see how badly you fall flat on your face. Hmmm... looks like the
> USAF wants better than average scores:
> <https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/asvab/asvab-and-air-force-jobs.html>

Apparently you think that the more words you write the more intellectual you appear. Sorry, you don't have the intellect of a earthworm.

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:59:17 PM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:41:14 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 3:57:28 PM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 14:45:48 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >To get in the military you have to have a minimum IQ of 83 ...
> >>
> >> Nope.
> >> <https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/after-service/201801/are-military-members-the-lowest-our-low>
> >> US military does not use an IQ score, but instead uses the similar
> >> ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) test where the
> >> score is the applicants percentile score when compared to other
> >> applicants.
> >>
> >> "To qualify, recruits must score higher than roughly one-third of all
> >> who take the ASVAB. The lowest acceptable percentile score to join is
> >> 36 for the Air Force, 35 for the Navy, 32 for the Marine Corps, and 31
> >> for the Army."
> >>
> >> "By definition, the worst test taker who makes it into the military
> >> still scores higher than one-third of his or her peers. The military
> >> intentionally slices off the bottom third of test-takers, not allowing
> >> them to join."
> >>
> >> Tom. Bad news:
> >> "Pew reports that 98 percent of the enlisted force has at least a high
> >> school diploma."
> >> That puts you in the lowest 2% of the military.
> >> <https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2011/10/05/chapter-6-a-profile-of-the-modern-military/>
> >> See the section under "Education Levels" for more details. Maybe 2%
> >> is a bit optimistic:
> >> "About eight-in-ten active-duty military personnel are high school
> >> graduates or have completed at least a year of college or other
> >> postsecondary training. Nearly two-in-ten (17.9%) are college
> >> graduates or have an advanced degree, while only 0.6% never finished
> >> high school."
> >>
> >> Drivel:
> >> "Replacing a gunner who scores around the 20th percentile with one who
> >> scores around the 55th percentile improves the likelihood of hitting a
> >> target by 34 percent."
>
> >So once again Jeffy proves that he has never heard the old saying, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" or in the his case, "a horse's ass by any other name is still a horses ass." He wants everyone to believe that an intelligence test isn't an intelligence test.
> Well, yes. That's true. The IQ test results is an absolute number,
> where one is compared with an average IQ score of 100, based on the
> results of past testing. In the USofA, the average is 98. Close
> enough:
> <https://www.healthline.com/health/average-iq>
>
> For the military ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery)
> test, the score is relative to the distribution of scores
> (percentiles) from all other candidates being tested. This allows the
> test to be made more or less difficult, without changing the
> distribution. For example, if the military wants reject the lower 1/3
> of those tested, it can do so without much worry about the educational
> level of the applicants. For different backgrounds, the scores will
> probably be very different, but the distribution (percentiles) will be
> the same.
>
> Incidentally, there are quite a few ASVAB practice exams available
> online:
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=asvab+practice+test>
> I think this is the official practice test:
> <https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/asvab>
> Note that there are 3 versions of the test. You might want to try one
> to see how badly you fall flat on your face. Hmmm... looks like the
> USAF wants better than average scores:
> <https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/asvab/asvab-and-air-force-jobs.html>

You were never in the service but you want to tell us all about it. Do you have any idea what that makes you look like?

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 10:27:55 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/11/2022 11:56 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>> On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 9:37:50 p.m. UTC-5, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 7:35:23 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
>> Snipped
>>> Your AR-15 has a 20 or 30 shot magazine. Most likely .223 Remington or NATO ammunition. Your Police Special has 6 shots. The 5 shot S&W only became common fairly recently. The lever action likely has a 7 or 8 or 9 round tube fed ammo holding system. So roughly the AR-15 has 5 times the revolver capacity and 4 times the rifle capacity. You can easily fire two shots per second. Bang-bang. Thats one second. Maybe you can even fire three rounds per second.
>> Snipped
>>
>> You cab tape two 30 rounds AR15 magazines together with the openings opposite each other. With that setup you can easily change the magazine in a second or two at the most.
>>
>
>Which must be very handy if the first 30 rounds don't finish off that
>deer...

But so what? Look at the numbers of bicycles sold that spend their
life hanging in the garage, or racing bicycles being ridden at the
death defying speed of 12 mph.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 11:29:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/12/2022 1:35 AM, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 20:46:19 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/11/2022 8:37 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 7:35:23 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 2/11/2022 7:16 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:38:47 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/10/2022 10:51 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 20:11:51 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2022 7:04 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:44:34 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2022 1:43 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It might be that the Air Gun was the most effective weapon that the
>>>>>>>>>>>> expedition carried as while I can't find a specific statement that the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Girandoni was rifled...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It was rifled.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> See https://youtu.be/2dZLeEUE940?t=189
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Interesting. Very innovative. The first rifled long guns in the U.S.
>>>>>>>>>> army date to about 1800 and in the British Army about the same period.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I defer to you on official War Department procurement, since
>>>>>>>>> I have no idea.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But I do know something about our Founding. Paul Revere and
>>>>>>>>> William Dawes left Boston on horseback at night* because
>>>>>>>>> some 700-odd of the British garrison had marched out at
>>>>>>>>> midnight* for Lexington where the most accurate _long
>>>>>>>>> rifles_ on the continent were manufactured. They took a
>>>>>>>>> circuitous route but did arrive at Lexington in time and the
>>>>>>>>> results, including the forced withdrawal at Concord, were
>>>>>>>>> our 'shot heard round the world'. A result in our favor was
>>>>>>>>> critically due to the superior range and accuracy of long
>>>>>>>>> rifles against smooth bore British issue muskets.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 18 April, 1775.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> * 1775! No streetlights, no headlamps, no paved rural roads.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, I've read the stories and yes, British troops were marching to
>>>>>>>> seize stores of gun powder and some arms at Lexington, and yes, I've
>>>>>>>> read stories about the Minute Men snipping from behind fences but I
>>>>>>>> doubt greatly whether many rifles were used, although admittedly this
>>>>>>>> seems to be a constant theme in U.S. history.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But, where did these "rifles" come from? The average farmer had no
>>>>>>>> requirement for an expensive rifled gun, a smooth bore was far cheaper
>>>>>>>> and far more versatile for use on the farm.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Additionally there were no organized munitions makers in the U.S. and
>>>>>>>> rifles were made one at a time, and were extremely expensive. Kenneth
>>>>>>>> Roberts in the historical novel Arundel, based on actual diaries of
>>>>>>>> the 1775 Quebec Campaign, mentions used rifles with accoutrements
>>>>>>>> exchanged for 12-15 English pounds. A smooth bore at the time might be
>>>>>>>> 2 pounds and 4 shillings. To get an idea of how much this was there is
>>>>>>>> a record of a John Moll paying 45 pounds for a 60’ X 230’ building lot
>>>>>>>> in Allentown in 1772. And, William Carlin, a tailor in colonial
>>>>>>>> Alexandria who made clothes for field hands as well as the planter
>>>>>>>> elite, charged £3-5 for an ordinary wool suit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some of the greatest support furnished by the French to the
>>>>>>>> revolutionists was in the form of muskets and gun power. In the
>>>>>>>> Battles of Saratoga on September 19 and October 7, 1777, it is
>>>>>>>> estimated that as many as nine out of 10 American soldiers carried
>>>>>>>> French arms, and were completely dependent on French gunpowder.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was engaged in a discussion on currency debasement policy
>>>>>>> (popularly called 'inflation') and remembered your post
>>>>>>> above so I checked the NPV of 14 Sterling in 1775.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Current value 2400 pounds or US$3200. For reference, your
>>>>>>> average popular modern rifle runs somewhere around $2000.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you make a good point that premium equipment of the era
>>>>>>> was pricey. No wonder Louis sent muskets!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Typical selections:
>>>>>>> https://blog.gunassociation.org/best-rifles/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/guns/rifles/centerfire/2011/11/20-best-semi-automatic-rifles-big-game-hunting/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> where $3000 rifles are at the far end of 'popular', most are
>>>>>>> below $2000, and the range is $800 to $7000
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was "into" gun smithing for a while and actually gave some thought
>>>>>> to doing it as a business after I left the Military, and "back then",
>>>>>> say the 1960's a good "deer rifle" with iron sights was in the $200
>>>>>> range. And, disregarding my Military pay and allowances, I was making
>>>>>> $10 a day part time in a gunsmith shop (:-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Disregarding "Home Defense" mentioned in your reference above, my
>>>>>> grandfather used a Winchester lever action 38-55 as a "deer rifle" and
>>>>>> killed his one deer a year under his license (and sometimes two if
>>>>>> the Game Warden was down at the other end of the state) and had one
>>>>>> packet of, I think it was 20 rounds, that he'd been using for
>>>>>> something like 10 years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which might say something about AR-15's, and other shoot em up,
>>>>>> bang,bang, guns as hunting rifles (:-)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>> We've been over this here on RBT at least a dozen times over
>>>>> the years. My AR-15 repeats at the exact same speed as my
>>>>> .38 Police Special revolver. Both are faster than
>>>>> girlfriend's inherited .30 Winchester vintage lever, but not
>>>>> by all that much. None of those are magic lead-spraying
>>>>> pew-pew-pew television weapons.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Andrew Muzi
>>>>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>>>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>>>>
>>>> Your AR-15 has a 20 or 30 shot magazine. Most likely .223 Remington or NATO ammunition. Your Police Special has 6 shots. The 5 shot S&W only became common fairly recently. The lever action likely has a 7 or 8 or 9 round tube fed ammo holding system. So roughly the AR-15 has 5 times the revolver capacity and 4 times the rifle capacity. You can easily fire two shots per second. Bang-bang. Thats one second. Maybe you can even fire three rounds per second.
>>>>
>>>> At the June 12, 2016 Orlando Florida mass shooting at a GAY nightclub, a SIG Sauer MCX semi-automatic rifle (it is an AR-15) and a Glock 17 semi auto pistol were used. 49 people killed, 53 wounded.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting#Weapons
>>>> "In less than five minutes, Mateen had fired approximately 200 rounds, pausing only to reload." That works out to a little more than 40 rounds per minute. One and a half seconds per shot. Not too fast I guess.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_MCX
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock#Glock_17
>>>>
>>>> It wasn't until October 2017, a whole year and 3 months later, that Orlando lost its crown as the biggest mass shooting in US history. That is when the Las Vegas concert killer used the bump stock device on his AR-15 rifles to kill 60 and wound 411.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting#Weaponry
>>>> "Paddock was found to have fired a total of 1,058 rounds from fifteen of the firearms: 1,049 from twelve AR-15-style rifles, eight from two AR-10-style rifles, and the round used to kill himself from the Smith & Wesson revolver."
>>>>
>>>
>>> meh.
>>>
>>> And every day (more than usual this week) there are multiple
>>> stabbings and sword/machete murders.
>>>
>>> https://www.wate.com/news/sword-attack-in-indiana-leaves-2-dead-1-wounded/
>>>
>>> https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Sword-wielding-man-shot-by-New-Braunfels-police-16836088.php
>>>
>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/police-find-man-decapitating-girlfriend-with-machete-in-philadelphia/ar-AATJCVg
>>>
>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/man-accused-of-attacking-lakewood-store-employee-with-machete-police-say/ar-AATJXiV
>>>
>>> https://www.thedailybeast.com/karla-jackelin-morales-allegedly-lured-jose-villanueva-to-ms-13-machete-death-and-skipped-bail
>>>
>>> I skip the stabbings/slashings with knives/razors which are
>>> frequent.
>>>
>>> Turns out that by not prosecuting/detaining criminals,
>>> mayhem results. Weapon of choice may vary but the results
>>> are fungibly similar.
>>
>> But when you say "GUN" Ohoooo it is so scary.
>>
>> As has been discussed before, the FBI records show that in 2015 "long
>> guns" killed 463 victims and hands and feet killed 651.
>>
>> But a news article announcing "Oh Yes, he was kicked to death" is sort
>> of, well sort of every day, and far less thrilling that "He was shot,
>> 17 times!"
>
>As we've mentioned before: Data on U.S. gun crime generally shows a
>small number of homicides by "long gun" or "rifle." But it shows a large
>number by unspecified "firearm," a separate category from "handgun." I
>assume that means that the type of gun was undetermined. And I think
>it's reasonable to say a large portion of those undetermined cases are
>in fact ARs.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 12:07:20 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/12/2022 8:43 AM, Tim R wrote:
>> At the risk of straying off bicycle tire valves and onto gun control,
>> ...
>>
>> AR-15. I think they are the most popular gun sold now, lots of them out there. Few of them apparently misused, so technically probably the safest gun we have. (The US has more gun deaths than other countries. But we also have many times more guns than other countries. A smaller percentage of our guns are misused, therefore the conclusion is gun ownership is safer in the US than elsewhere.)
>
>That's specious logic. By that standard, the way to make guns "safer"
>would be to legally require the ownership of ten loaded guns by every
>American - including every violent felon, every paranoid nut case,
>little kid. Sure, the death count would soar, but since only one gun
>could be shot at a time (usually) the percentage of guns not used in
>homicide would be very low.
>
>Nobody but gun companies should give positive credit to the number of
>guns in circulation. The metric for gun safety should be the number of
>gun deaths per capita. And the U.S. is the worst among its peers by that
>metric, something like tenth out of ~200 nations, with only places
>similar to Venezuela or Honduras being worse.
>https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country
>Hell, our rate is six times that of Canada, a hunting paradise.
>
>> In the US there are roughly 14,000 gun homicides and 22,000 gun suicides every year, doesn't vary by much. Of those, less than .25% of homicides are with rifles, less than .10% of suicides are with rifles.
>
>You're ignoring the large number of deaths by unspecified firearm, many
>of which are probably AR or other long guns.
>
>> Yes, the two combined don't add up to half a percent, yet it is the only gun being considered for a ban.
>
>Well, there are lots of guns effectively banned, not to mention other
>weapons. But again, advantages vs. disadvantages: AR guns make a guy
>feel tough and macho. AR guns can kill a couple dozen schoolkids in a
>few minutes.
>
>> I think this is inherently racist. I think these guns are more scary to white people. People of color are probably much more at risk from 9mm pistols.
>
>Hmm. "More scary?" I think rapid fire, combat optimized, large magazine
>guns are scary to "people of [non-white] color" as well as white people.
>When gang bangers and drug dealers are frequently arrested in possession
>of such weaponry, it has an effect; and more of those arrests seem to
>happen in neighborhoods that are less white.
>
>> But at any rate, completely eliminating the AR type weapon by a total confiscation would have zero detectable effect on gun deaths in the US.
>
>It seems to have pretty much eliminated mass shootings in Australia,
>which is something worth achieving. And certainly, among developed
>nations, the U.S. attitude toward guns is a gross outlier. So is the
>U.S. gun fatality rate.

But Frank, the rate of auto deaths in the U.S. is 12.4/100,000 and
deaths by firearm is 12.21. Shouldn't we "go for the gold" and solve
the car problem first and when we solve that problem then move on to
guns?

In comparison Canada has an auto death rate of 1.94, the U.K. - 0.20,
France - 2.33, Germany - 1.04, Italy - 1.13...
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 5:57:28 PM UTC-6, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 14:45:48 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >To get in the military you have to have a minimum IQ of 83 ...
>
> Nope.
> <https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/after-service/201801/are-military-members-the-lowest-our-low>
> US military does not use an IQ score, but instead uses the similar
> ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) test where the
> score is the applicants percentile score when compared to other
> applicants.
>
> "To qualify, recruits must score higher than roughly one-third of all
> who take the ASVAB. The lowest acceptable percentile score to join is
> 36 for the Air Force, 35 for the Navy, 32 for the Marine Corps, and 31
> for the Army."
>
> "By definition, the worst test taker who makes it into the military
> still scores higher than one-third of his or her peers. The military
> intentionally slices off the bottom third of test-takers, not allowing
> them to join."
>
> Tom. Bad news:
> "Pew reports that 98 percent of the enlisted force has at least a high
> school diploma."
> That puts you in the lowest 2% of the military.
> <https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2011/10/05/chapter-6-a-profile-of-the-modern-military/>
> See the section under "Education Levels" for more details. Maybe 2%
> is a bit optimistic:
> "About eight-in-ten active-duty military personnel are high school
> graduates or have completed at least a year of college or other
> postsecondary training. Nearly two-in-ten (17.9%) are college
> graduates or have an advanced degree, while only 0.6% never finished
> high school."
>
> Drivel:
> "Replacing a gunner who scores around the 20th percentile with one who
> scores around the 55th percentile improves the likelihood of hitting a
> target by 34 percent."
> --
> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Is this correct? Or a better question, does the above testing apply to officer candidates or to non officer enlisted personnel? I have seen numerous articles about the recruiting of low ranking enlisted personnel and they do everything they can to get anyone to fill the spots. So it seems hard to believe they would then throw out 1/3 of the recruits because they are too dumb. Through out history, the military has always been considered a last resort option for anyone who had no hope upon leaving high school. Join the military as a private and get a job and money and training. Officer is different. Since you have to have a college degree to become an officer in the military. And if you obtain a college degree, then you probably have a brightish future. I should state that the above applies from about 1975 until today. From roughly 1975 and back, all the high school graduating men had to go to college, serve a couple years in the military, or have a physical defect exemption. But from about 1975 onwards, the only ones going into the military were the ones who wanted to. And for many it was the only economic option.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 13:10:32 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 2/12/2022 10:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 2/12/2022 1:35 AM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 20:46:19 -0600, AMuzi
>>> <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/11/2022 8:37 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 7:35:23 PM UTC-6, AMuzi
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/11/2022 7:16 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:38:47 -0600, AMuzi
>>>>>>> <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2022 10:51 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 20:11:51 -0600, AMuzi
>>>>>>>>> <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2022 7:04 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:44:34 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2022 1:43 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It might be that the Air Gun was the most
>>>>>>>>>>>>> effective weapon that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expedition carried as while I can't find a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific statement that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Girandoni was rifled...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It was rifled.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> See https://youtu.be/2dZLeEUE940?t=189
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting. Very innovative. The first rifled
>>>>>>>>>>> long guns in the U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>> army date to about 1800 and in the British Army
>>>>>>>>>>> about the same period.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I defer to you on official War Department
>>>>>>>>>> procurement, since
>>>>>>>>>> I have no idea.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But I do know something about our Founding. Paul
>>>>>>>>>> Revere and
>>>>>>>>>> William Dawes left Boston on horseback at night*
>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>> some 700-odd of the British garrison had marched
>>>>>>>>>> out at
>>>>>>>>>> midnight* for Lexington where the most accurate _long
>>>>>>>>>> rifles_ on the continent were manufactured. They
>>>>>>>>>> took a
>>>>>>>>>> circuitous route but did arrive at Lexington in
>>>>>>>>>> time and the
>>>>>>>>>> results, including the forced withdrawal at
>>>>>>>>>> Concord, were
>>>>>>>>>> our 'shot heard round the world'. A result in our
>>>>>>>>>> favor was
>>>>>>>>>> critically due to the superior range and accuracy
>>>>>>>>>> of long
>>>>>>>>>> rifles against smooth bore British issue muskets.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 18 April, 1775.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * 1775! No streetlights, no headlamps, no paved
>>>>>>>>>> rural roads.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, I've read the stories and yes, British troops
>>>>>>>>> were marching to
>>>>>>>>> seize stores of gun powder and some arms at
>>>>>>>>> Lexington, and yes, I've
>>>>>>>>> read stories about the Minute Men snipping from
>>>>>>>>> behind fences but I
>>>>>>>>> doubt greatly whether many rifles were used,
>>>>>>>>> although admittedly this
>>>>>>>>> seems to be a constant theme in U.S. history.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But, where did these "rifles" come from? The average
>>>>>>>>> farmer had no
>>>>>>>>> requirement for an expensive rifled gun, a smooth
>>>>>>>>> bore was far cheaper
>>>>>>>>> and far more versatile for use on the farm.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Additionally there were no organized munitions
>>>>>>>>> makers in the U.S. and
>>>>>>>>> rifles were made one at a time, and were extremely
>>>>>>>>> expensive. Kenneth
>>>>>>>>> Roberts in the historical novel Arundel, based on
>>>>>>>>> actual diaries of
>>>>>>>>> the 1775 Quebec Campaign, mentions used rifles with
>>>>>>>>> accoutrements
>>>>>>>>> exchanged for 12-15 English pounds. A smooth bore at
>>>>>>>>> the time might be
>>>>>>>>> 2 pounds and 4 shillings. To get an idea of how much
>>>>>>>>> this was there is
>>>>>>>>> a record of a John Moll paying 45 pounds for a
>>>>>>>>> 60’ X 230’ building lot
>>>>>>>>> in Allentown in 1772. And, William Carlin, a tailor
>>>>>>>>> in colonial
>>>>>>>>> Alexandria who made clothes for field hands as well
>>>>>>>>> as the planter
>>>>>>>>> elite, charged £3-5 for an ordinary wool suit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Some of the greatest support furnished by the French
>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>> revolutionists was in the form of muskets and gun
>>>>>>>>> power. In the
>>>>>>>>> Battles of Saratoga on September 19 and October 7,
>>>>>>>>> 1777, it is
>>>>>>>>> estimated that as many as nine out of 10 American
>>>>>>>>> soldiers carried
>>>>>>>>> French arms, and were completely dependent on French
>>>>>>>>> gunpowder.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was engaged in a discussion on currency debasement
>>>>>>>> policy
>>>>>>>> (popularly called 'inflation') and remembered your post
>>>>>>>> above so I checked the NPV of 14 Sterling in 1775.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Current value 2400 pounds or US$3200. For reference,
>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>> average popular modern rifle runs somewhere around
>>>>>>>> $2000.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you make a good point that premium equipment of
>>>>>>>> the era
>>>>>>>> was pricey. No wonder Louis sent muskets!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Typical selections:
>>>>>>>> https://blog.gunassociation.org/best-rifles/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/guns/rifles/centerfire/2011/11/20-best-semi-automatic-rifles-big-game-hunting/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> where $3000 rifles are at the far end of 'popular',
>>>>>>>> most are
>>>>>>>> below $2000, and the range is $800 to $7000
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was "into" gun smithing for a while and actually
>>>>>>> gave some thought
>>>>>>> to doing it as a business after I left the Military,
>>>>>>> and "back then",
>>>>>>> say the 1960's a good "deer rifle" with iron sights
>>>>>>> was in the $200
>>>>>>> range. And, disregarding my Military pay and
>>>>>>> allowances, I was making
>>>>>>> $10 a day part time in a gunsmith shop (:-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Disregarding "Home Defense" mentioned in your
>>>>>>> reference above, my
>>>>>>> grandfather used a Winchester lever action 38-55 as a
>>>>>>> "deer rifle" and
>>>>>>> killed his one deer a year under his license (and
>>>>>>> sometimes two if
>>>>>>> the Game Warden was down at the other end of the
>>>>>>> state) and had one
>>>>>>> packet of, I think it was 20 rounds, that he'd been
>>>>>>> using for
>>>>>>> something like 10 years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which might say something about AR-15's, and other
>>>>>>> shoot em up,
>>>>>>> bang,bang, guns as hunting rifles (:-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>> We've been over this here on RBT at least a dozen times
>>>>>> over
>>>>>> the years. My AR-15 repeats at the exact same speed as my
>>>>>> .38 Police Special revolver. Both are faster than
>>>>>> girlfriend's inherited .30 Winchester vintage lever,
>>>>>> but not
>>>>>> by all that much. None of those are magic lead-spraying
>>>>>> pew-pew-pew television weapons.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Andrew Muzi
>>>>>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>>>>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>>>>>
>>>>> Your AR-15 has a 20 or 30 shot magazine. Most likely
>>>>> .223 Remington or NATO ammunition. Your Police Special
>>>>> has 6 shots. The 5 shot S&W only became common fairly
>>>>> recently. The lever action likely has a 7 or 8 or 9
>>>>> round tube fed ammo holding system. So roughly the
>>>>> AR-15 has 5 times the revolver capacity and 4 times the
>>>>> rifle capacity. You can easily fire two shots per
>>>>> second. Bang-bang. Thats one second. Maybe you can
>>>>> even fire three rounds per second.
>>>>>
>>>>> At the June 12, 2016 Orlando Florida mass shooting at a
>>>>> GAY nightclub, a SIG Sauer MCX semi-automatic rifle (it
>>>>> is an AR-15) and a Glock 17 semi auto pistol were used.
>>>>> 49 people killed, 53 wounded.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting#Weapons
>>>>>
>>>>> "In less than five minutes, Mateen had fired
>>>>> approximately 200 rounds, pausing only to reload." That
>>>>> works out to a little more than 40 rounds per minute.
>>>>> One and a half seconds per shot. Not too fast I guess.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_MCX
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock#Glock_17
>>>>>
>>>>> It wasn't until October 2017, a whole year and 3 months
>>>>> later, that Orlando lost its crown as the biggest mass
>>>>> shooting in US history. That is when the Las Vegas
>>>>> concert killer used the bump stock device on his AR-15
>>>>> rifles to kill 60 and wound 411.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting#Weaponry
>>>>>
>>>>> "Paddock was found to have fired a total of 1,058 rounds
>>>>> from fifteen of the firearms: 1,049 from twelve
>>>>> AR-15-style rifles, eight from two AR-10-style rifles,
>>>>> and the round used to kill himself from the Smith &
>>>>> Wesson revolver."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> meh.
>>>>
>>>> And every day (more than usual this week) there are multiple
>>>> stabbings and sword/machete murders.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.wate.com/news/sword-attack-in-indiana-leaves-2-dead-1-wounded/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Sword-wielding-man-shot-by-New-Braunfels-police-16836088.php
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/police-find-man-decapitating-girlfriend-with-machete-in-philadelphia/ar-AATJCVg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/man-accused-of-attacking-lakewood-store-employee-with-machete-police-say/ar-AATJXiV
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.thedailybeast.com/karla-jackelin-morales-allegedly-lured-jose-villanueva-to-ms-13-machete-death-and-skipped-bail
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I skip the stabbings/slashings with knives/razors which are
>>>> frequent.
>>>>
>>>> Turns out that by not prosecuting/detaining criminals,
>>>> mayhem results. Weapon of choice may vary but the results
>>>> are fungibly similar.
>>>
>>> But when you say "GUN" Ohoooo it is so scary.
>>>
>>> As has been discussed before, the FBI records show that in
>>> 2015 "long
>>> guns" killed 463 victims and hands and feet killed 651.
>>>
>>> But a news article announcing "Oh Yes, he was kicked to
>>> death" is sort
>>> of, well sort of every day, and far less thrilling that
>>> "He was shot,
>>> 17 times!"
>>
>> As we've mentioned before: Data on U.S. gun crime generally
>> shows a small number of homicides by "long gun" or "rifle."
>> But it shows a large number by unspecified "firearm," a
>> separate category from "handgun." I assume that means that
>> the type of gun was undetermined. And I think it's
>> reasonable to say a large portion of those undetermined
>> cases are in fact ARs.
>>
>> And regarding hands and feet vs. semi-automatic, easily
>> customized, large magazine assault-style rifles: Can we
>> again consider advantages and disadvantages? I shouldn't
>> have to point out that hands and feet have countless
>> practical uses, and that life without them would be
>> difficult. (The same is true of knives, BTW.)
>>
>> What are the advantages and disadvantages of AR-style
>> weaponry? Well, a disadvantage is that those guns are the
>> weapon of choice for crackpots choosing to blow away bunches
>> of kids in a schoolroom, a bunch of people in a night club,
>> a bunch of people at a music concert, etc. Also, their
>> widespread presence makes the job of a cop much more
>> difficult, since it's easy for them to be out-gunned.
>> (That's something almost no other developed countries have
>> to worry about).
>>
>> The AR advantages are so slight that most truly civilized
>> countries do perfectly well with roughly zero of them in
>> circulation. In fact, those other countries do far better.
>>
>> What _are_ the advantages of AR-style guns? "Dude, they're
>> cool! And when I play with mine or shoot at those silhouette
>> targets, I can pretend I'm a really tough commando defending
>> my home against ... um, them other people. Even though I'm
>> really a feeble 77 year old pot bellied guy with memory
>> problems."
>>
>> "Really cool" doesn't outweigh "27 schoolkids murdered" in
>> my book.
>>
>
>As was noted by Mr Bach above, every problem is not a
>crisis. You're not innumerate. There are more than 20
>million AR-15 in the US of A, the greater bulk of which just
>passed another uneventful day, oiled and cased.

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:29:38 PM UTC-6, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 3:14:50 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> >
> > Add in through wounds, fragments unrecovered, and you have
> > an 'indeterminate' area.
> > --
> > Andrew Muzi
> > <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> > Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> I think there is a risk of interpreting indeterminant to mean they couldn't tell, rather than that they didn't say.

Agree regarding "indeterminate" for death/killing/gun reports. The one national federal number is determined from 50 states each sending data upwards.. And every one of those 50 states has 50 to 100 or so counties. And every one of those counties has a sheriff. And every county likely has 1 to 20 cities in the county. Each with its own police force. And every one of those use different forms and different people for filling out all the paperwork. And everyone investigating the various shootings does not have the same skill level or organizational ability. So you have thousands and thousands of people investigating and filling out forms at the lowest level. And people question how "indeterminate" ends up at the highest level ten steps up. Well, Tommy questions it, so it makes sense.

>
> Certainly for a suicide, if you don't have the gun available, there's a problem!
>
> For a homicide it would be very rare to mistake a rifle wound for a pistol wound - true there are some carbines that fire pistol rounds, are these really likely to be common murder weapons? They are not concealable or commonly carried by criminals.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 11:53:30 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 11:10:39 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/12/2022 10:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> > On 2/12/2022 1:35 AM, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 20:46:19 -0600, AMuzi
>> >> <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 2/11/2022 8:37 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>>> On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 7:35:23 PM UTC-6, AMuzi
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>> On 2/11/2022 7:16 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:38:47 -0600, AMuzi
>> >>>>>> <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On 2/10/2022 10:51 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 20:11:51 -0600, AMuzi
>> >>>>>>>> <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2022 7:04 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:44:34 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> >>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2022 1:43 AM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It might be that the Air Gun was the most
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> effective weapon that the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> expedition carried as while I can't find a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> specific statement that the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Girandoni was rifled...
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> It was rifled.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> See https://youtu.be/2dZLeEUE940?t=189
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Interesting. Very innovative. The first rifled
>> >>>>>>>>>> long guns in the U.S.
>> >>>>>>>>>> army date to about 1800 and in the British Army
>> >>>>>>>>>> about the same period.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I defer to you on official War Department
>> >>>>>>>>> procurement, since
>> >>>>>>>>> I have no idea.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> But I do know something about our Founding. Paul
>> >>>>>>>>> Revere and
>> >>>>>>>>> William Dawes left Boston on horseback at night*
>> >>>>>>>>> because
>> >>>>>>>>> some 700-odd of the British garrison had marched
>> >>>>>>>>> out at
>> >>>>>>>>> midnight* for Lexington where the most accurate _long
>> >>>>>>>>> rifles_ on the continent were manufactured. They
>> >>>>>>>>> took a
>> >>>>>>>>> circuitous route but did arrive at Lexington in
>> >>>>>>>>> time and the
>> >>>>>>>>> results, including the forced withdrawal at
>> >>>>>>>>> Concord, were
>> >>>>>>>>> our 'shot heard round the world'. A result in our
>> >>>>>>>>> favor was
>> >>>>>>>>> critically due to the superior range and accuracy
>> >>>>>>>>> of long
>> >>>>>>>>> rifles against smooth bore British issue muskets.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> 18 April, 1775.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> * 1775! No streetlights, no headlamps, no paved
>> >>>>>>>>> rural roads.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Yes, I've read the stories and yes, British troops
>> >>>>>>>> were marching to
>> >>>>>>>> seize stores of gun powder and some arms at
>> >>>>>>>> Lexington, and yes, I've
>> >>>>>>>> read stories about the Minute Men snipping from
>> >>>>>>>> behind fences but I
>> >>>>>>>> doubt greatly whether many rifles were used,
>> >>>>>>>> although admittedly this
>> >>>>>>>> seems to be a constant theme in U.S. history.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> But, where did these "rifles" come from? The average
>> >>>>>>>> farmer had no
>> >>>>>>>> requirement for an expensive rifled gun, a smooth
>> >>>>>>>> bore was far cheaper
>> >>>>>>>> and far more versatile for use on the farm.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Additionally there were no organized munitions
>> >>>>>>>> makers in the U.S. and
>> >>>>>>>> rifles were made one at a time, and were extremely
>> >>>>>>>> expensive. Kenneth
>> >>>>>>>> Roberts in the historical novel Arundel, based on
>> >>>>>>>> actual diaries of
>> >>>>>>>> the 1775 Quebec Campaign, mentions used rifles with
>> >>>>>>>> accoutrements
>> >>>>>>>> exchanged for 12-15 English pounds. A smooth bore at
>> >>>>>>>> the time might be
>> >>>>>>>> 2 pounds and 4 shillings. To get an idea of how much
>> >>>>>>>> this was there is
>> >>>>>>>> a record of a John Moll paying 45 pounds for a
>> >>>>>>>> 60’ X 230’ building lot
>> >>>>>>>> in Allentown in 1772. And, William Carlin, a tailor
>> >>>>>>>> in colonial
>> >>>>>>>> Alexandria who made clothes for field hands as well
>> >>>>>>>> as the planter
>> >>>>>>>> elite, charged £3-5 for an ordinary wool suit.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Some of the greatest support furnished by the French
>> >>>>>>>> to the
>> >>>>>>>> revolutionists was in the form of muskets and gun
>> >>>>>>>> power. In the
>> >>>>>>>> Battles of Saratoga on September 19 and October 7,
>> >>>>>>>> 1777, it is
>> >>>>>>>> estimated that as many as nine out of 10 American
>> >>>>>>>> soldiers carried
>> >>>>>>>> French arms, and were completely dependent on French
>> >>>>>>>> gunpowder.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I was engaged in a discussion on currency debasement
>> >>>>>>> policy
>> >>>>>>> (popularly called 'inflation') and remembered your post
>> >>>>>>> above so I checked the NPV of 14 Sterling in 1775.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Current value 2400 pounds or US$3200. For reference,
>> >>>>>>> your
>> >>>>>>> average popular modern rifle runs somewhere around
>> >>>>>>> $2000.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> So you make a good point that premium equipment of
>> >>>>>>> the era
>> >>>>>>> was pricey. No wonder Louis sent muskets!
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Typical selections:
>> >>>>>>> https://blog.gunassociation.org/best-rifles/
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> https://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/guns/rifles/centerfire/2011/11/20-best-semi-automatic-rifles-big-game-hunting/
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> where $3000 rifles are at the far end of 'popular',
>> >>>>>>> most are
>> >>>>>>> below $2000, and the range is $800 to $7000
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I was "into" gun smithing for a while and actually
>> >>>>>> gave some thought
>> >>>>>> to doing it as a business after I left the Military,
>> >>>>>> and "back then",
>> >>>>>> say the 1960's a good "deer rifle" with iron sights
>> >>>>>> was in the $200
>> >>>>>> range. And, disregarding my Military pay and
>> >>>>>> allowances, I was making
>> >>>>>> $10 a day part time in a gunsmith shop (:-)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Disregarding "Home Defense" mentioned in your
>> >>>>>> reference above, my
>> >>>>>> grandfather used a Winchester lever action 38-55 as a
>> >>>>>> "deer rifle" and
>> >>>>>> killed his one deer a year under his license (and
>> >>>>>> sometimes two if
>> >>>>>> the Game Warden was down at the other end of the
>> >>>>>> state) and had one
>> >>>>>> packet of, I think it was 20 rounds, that he'd been
>> >>>>>> using for
>> >>>>>> something like 10 years.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Which might say something about AR-15's, and other
>> >>>>>> shoot em up,
>> >>>>>> bang,bang, guns as hunting rifles (:-)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> Wrong.
>> >>>>> We've been over this here on RBT at least a dozen times
>> >>>>> over
>> >>>>> the years. My AR-15 repeats at the exact same speed as my
>> >>>>> .38 Police Special revolver. Both are faster than
>> >>>>> girlfriend's inherited .30 Winchester vintage lever,
>> >>>>> but not
>> >>>>> by all that much. None of those are magic lead-spraying
>> >>>>> pew-pew-pew television weapons.
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> Andrew Muzi
>> >>>>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>> >>>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Your AR-15 has a 20 or 30 shot magazine. Most likely
>> >>>> .223 Remington or NATO ammunition. Your Police Special
>> >>>> has 6 shots. The 5 shot S&W only became common fairly
>> >>>> recently. The lever action likely has a 7 or 8 or 9
>> >>>> round tube fed ammo holding system. So roughly the
>> >>>> AR-15 has 5 times the revolver capacity and 4 times the
>> >>>> rifle capacity. You can easily fire two shots per
>> >>>> second. Bang-bang. Thats one second. Maybe you can
>> >>>> even fire three rounds per second.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> At the June 12, 2016 Orlando Florida mass shooting at a
>> >>>> GAY nightclub, a SIG Sauer MCX semi-automatic rifle (it
>> >>>> is an AR-15) and a Glock 17 semi auto pistol were used.
>> >>>> 49 people killed, 53 wounded.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting#Weapons
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "In less than five minutes, Mateen had fired
>> >>>> approximately 200 rounds, pausing only to reload." That
>> >>>> works out to a little more than 40 rounds per minute.
>> >>>> One and a half seconds per shot. Not too fast I guess.
>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_MCX
>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock#Glock_17
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It wasn't until October 2017, a whole year and 3 months
>> >>>> later, that Orlando lost its crown as the biggest mass
>> >>>> shooting in US history. That is when the Las Vegas
>> >>>> concert killer used the bump stock device on his AR-15
>> >>>> rifles to kill 60 and wound 411.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting#Weaponry
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "Paddock was found to have fired a total of 1,058 rounds
>> >>>> from fifteen of the firearms: 1,049 from twelve
>> >>>> AR-15-style rifles, eight from two AR-10-style rifles,
>> >>>> and the round used to kill himself from the Smith &
>> >>>> Wesson revolver."
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> meh.
>> >>>
>> >>> And every day (more than usual this week) there are multiple
>> >>> stabbings and sword/machete murders.
>> >>>
>> >>> https://www.wate.com/news/sword-attack-in-indiana-leaves-2-dead-1-wounded/
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Sword-wielding-man-shot-by-New-Braunfels-police-16836088.php
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/police-find-man-decapitating-girlfriend-with-machete-in-philadelphia/ar-AATJCVg
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/man-accused-of-attacking-lakewood-store-employee-with-machete-police-say/ar-AATJXiV
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> https://www.thedailybeast.com/karla-jackelin-morales-allegedly-lured-jose-villanueva-to-ms-13-machete-death-and-skipped-bail
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I skip the stabbings/slashings with knives/razors which are
>> >>> frequent.
>> >>>
>> >>> Turns out that by not prosecuting/detaining criminals,
>> >>> mayhem results. Weapon of choice may vary but the results
>> >>> are fungibly similar.
>> >>
>> >> But when you say "GUN" Ohoooo it is so scary.
>> >>
>> >> As has been discussed before, the FBI records show that in
>> >> 2015 "long
>> >> guns" killed 463 victims and hands and feet killed 651.
>> >>
>> >> But a news article announcing "Oh Yes, he was kicked to
>> >> death" is sort
>> >> of, well sort of every day, and far less thrilling that
>> >> "He was shot,
>> >> 17 times!"
>> >
>> > As we've mentioned before: Data on U.S. gun crime generally
>> > shows a small number of homicides by "long gun" or "rifle."
>> > But it shows a large number by unspecified "firearm," a
>> > separate category from "handgun." I assume that means that
>> > the type of gun was undetermined. And I think it's
>> > reasonable to say a large portion of those undetermined
>> > cases are in fact ARs.
>> >
>> > And regarding hands and feet vs. semi-automatic, easily
>> > customized, large magazine assault-style rifles: Can we
>> > again consider advantages and disadvantages? I shouldn't
>> > have to point out that hands and feet have countless
>> > practical uses, and that life without them would be
>> > difficult. (The same is true of knives, BTW.)
>> >
>> > What are the advantages and disadvantages of AR-style
>> > weaponry? Well, a disadvantage is that those guns are the
>> > weapon of choice for crackpots choosing to blow away bunches
>> > of kids in a schoolroom, a bunch of people in a night club,
>> > a bunch of people at a music concert, etc. Also, their
>> > widespread presence makes the job of a cop much more
>> > difficult, since it's easy for them to be out-gunned.
>> > (That's something almost no other developed countries have
>> > to worry about).
>> >
>> > The AR advantages are so slight that most truly civilized
>> > countries do perfectly well with roughly zero of them in
>> > circulation. In fact, those other countries do far better.
>> >
>> > What _are_ the advantages of AR-style guns? "Dude, they're
>> > cool! And when I play with mine or shoot at those silhouette
>> > targets, I can pretend I'm a really tough commando defending
>> > my home against ... um, them other people. Even though I'm
>> > really a feeble 77 year old pot bellied guy with memory
>> > problems."
>> >
>> > "Really cool" doesn't outweigh "27 schoolkids murdered" in
>> > my book.
>> >
>> As was noted by Mr Bach above, every problem is not a
>> crisis. You're not innumerate. There are more than 20
>> million AR-15 in the US of A, the greater bulk of which just
>> passed another uneventful day, oiled and cased.
>
>Exactly how would a gun homicide have a type of gun "indeterminate"? While there are rifles that shoot some handgun calibers the velocity of the bullet is enough different to determine whether it was a rifle or a handgun. IE Henry lever action rifles are made that shoot .357 but the velocity and rifling are substantially different. If you can recover a bullet you can almost always identify the brand of gun it was fired from. Sometimes even the year of manufacture.

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:43:54 PM UTC-6, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:24:12 PM UTC-5, Tim R wrote:
>
> Some discussion earlier about the military mindset and tradition.
>
> I read a fascinating book about the evolution of the military long arm over time, and there was violent disagreement from the earliest days over the choice of calibre which continues to this day. The title escapes me.
>
> The original musket was in .69 caliber. By the Civil War this had shrunk to .58, over the bitter resistance of what they called gravel bellies. Soldiers could carry more ammo, so they British sshot more ammo, so somebody had to pay for, procure, and deliver more ammo.
>
> .45 caliber owned the late 1800s, with the .30 appearing near the end. The Phillippine conflict still had mostly trapdoor springfields in .45 but I the .30 Krag was used. Every reduction was fought ferociously by the oldtimers.
>
> There were extensive tests of lethality (sheep I think), range, and accuracy at Aberdeen Proving ground, and out to about 1000 yards the .276 did as well as the larger calibers.
>
> In Vietnam we went to .223, which I think is the sweet spot - smaller loses range and penetration, larger loses ability to carry enough ammo and recoil hurts accuracy for most soldiers. (I recently rewatched Zulu. Those rifles were Martini-Henrys in .577/.450, meaning they were a .577 cartridge case necked down to fire a .450 caliber 480 grain bullet. Recoil had to be extreme with that loading, and the average soldier probably weighed about 140..)

Your description of caliber size decreasing over the centuries leaves out one pretty important fact. Gun powder changed from black powder to smokeless to whatever high tech propellant we are using today. Back with your original British Brown Bess .69 cartridge/.75 caliber, it was propelled with relatively weak black powder. By the time the 1898 Cuba war came along with Teddy leading the Rough Riders up the hill they were using smokeless powder in their .30-40 Krag rifles. And then I am guessing there were more advancements in gun powder leading up to Vietnam and the use of 5.56 NATO (.223).. So with the smaller and skinnier bullets using more explosive propellant, the killing force, energy foot pounds of force delivered to the target, was the same or even more.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 14:14:44 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 2/12/2022 1:53 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 11:10:39 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 2/12/2022 10:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 2/12/2022 1:35 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 20:46:19 -0600, AMuzi
>>>>> <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/11/2022 8:37 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 7:35:23 PM UTC-6, AMuzi
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2022 7:16 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:38:47 -0600, AMuzi
>>>>>>>>> <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2022 10:51 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 20:11:51 -0600, AMuzi
>>>>>>>>>>> <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2022 7:04 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:44:34 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2022 1:43 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It might be that the Air Gun was the most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effective weapon that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expedition carried as while I can't find a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific statement that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Girandoni was rifled...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was rifled.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See https://youtu.be/2dZLeEUE940?t=189
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting. Very innovative. The first rifled
>>>>>>>>>>>>> long guns in the U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> army date to about 1800 and in the British Army
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the same period.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I defer to you on official War Department
>>>>>>>>>>>> procurement, since
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have no idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But I do know something about our Founding. Paul
>>>>>>>>>>>> Revere and
>>>>>>>>>>>> William Dawes left Boston on horseback at night*
>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>> some 700-odd of the British garrison had marched
>>>>>>>>>>>> out at
>>>>>>>>>>>> midnight* for Lexington where the most accurate _long
>>>>>>>>>>>> rifles_ on the continent were manufactured. They
>>>>>>>>>>>> took a
>>>>>>>>>>>> circuitous route but did arrive at Lexington in
>>>>>>>>>>>> time and the
>>>>>>>>>>>> results, including the forced withdrawal at
>>>>>>>>>>>> Concord, were
>>>>>>>>>>>> our 'shot heard round the world'. A result in our
>>>>>>>>>>>> favor was
>>>>>>>>>>>> critically due to the superior range and accuracy
>>>>>>>>>>>> of long
>>>>>>>>>>>> rifles against smooth bore British issue muskets.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18 April, 1775.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> * 1775! No streetlights, no headlamps, no paved
>>>>>>>>>>>> rural roads.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I've read the stories and yes, British troops
>>>>>>>>>>> were marching to
>>>>>>>>>>> seize stores of gun powder and some arms at
>>>>>>>>>>> Lexington, and yes, I've
>>>>>>>>>>> read stories about the Minute Men snipping from
>>>>>>>>>>> behind fences but I
>>>>>>>>>>> doubt greatly whether many rifles were used,
>>>>>>>>>>> although admittedly this
>>>>>>>>>>> seems to be a constant theme in U.S. history.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But, where did these "rifles" come from? The average
>>>>>>>>>>> farmer had no
>>>>>>>>>>> requirement for an expensive rifled gun, a smooth
>>>>>>>>>>> bore was far cheaper
>>>>>>>>>>> and far more versatile for use on the farm.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally there were no organized munitions
>>>>>>>>>>> makers in the U.S. and
>>>>>>>>>>> rifles were made one at a time, and were extremely
>>>>>>>>>>> expensive. Kenneth
>>>>>>>>>>> Roberts in the historical novel Arundel, based on
>>>>>>>>>>> actual diaries of
>>>>>>>>>>> the 1775 Quebec Campaign, mentions used rifles with
>>>>>>>>>>> accoutrements
>>>>>>>>>>> exchanged for 12-15 English pounds. A smooth bore at
>>>>>>>>>>> the time might be
>>>>>>>>>>> 2 pounds and 4 shillings. To get an idea of how much
>>>>>>>>>>> this was there is
>>>>>>>>>>> a record of a John Moll paying 45 pounds for a
>>>>>>>>>>> 60’ X 230’ building lot
>>>>>>>>>>> in Allentown in 1772. And, William Carlin, a tailor
>>>>>>>>>>> in colonial
>>>>>>>>>>> Alexandria who made clothes for field hands as well
>>>>>>>>>>> as the planter
>>>>>>>>>>> elite, charged £3-5 for an ordinary wool suit.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Some of the greatest support furnished by the French
>>>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>>>> revolutionists was in the form of muskets and gun
>>>>>>>>>>> power. In the
>>>>>>>>>>> Battles of Saratoga on September 19 and October 7,
>>>>>>>>>>> 1777, it is
>>>>>>>>>>> estimated that as many as nine out of 10 American
>>>>>>>>>>> soldiers carried
>>>>>>>>>>> French arms, and were completely dependent on French
>>>>>>>>>>> gunpowder.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I was engaged in a discussion on currency debasement
>>>>>>>>>> policy
>>>>>>>>>> (popularly called 'inflation') and remembered your post
>>>>>>>>>> above so I checked the NPV of 14 Sterling in 1775.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Current value 2400 pounds or US$3200. For reference,
>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>> average popular modern rifle runs somewhere around
>>>>>>>>>> $2000.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you make a good point that premium equipment of
>>>>>>>>>> the era
>>>>>>>>>> was pricey. No wonder Louis sent muskets!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Typical selections:
>>>>>>>>>> https://blog.gunassociation.org/best-rifles/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/guns/rifles/centerfire/2011/11/20-best-semi-automatic-rifles-big-game-hunting/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> where $3000 rifles are at the far end of 'popular',
>>>>>>>>>> most are
>>>>>>>>>> below $2000, and the range is $800 to $7000
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I was "into" gun smithing for a while and actually
>>>>>>>>> gave some thought
>>>>>>>>> to doing it as a business after I left the Military,
>>>>>>>>> and "back then",
>>>>>>>>> say the 1960's a good "deer rifle" with iron sights
>>>>>>>>> was in the $200
>>>>>>>>> range. And, disregarding my Military pay and
>>>>>>>>> allowances, I was making
>>>>>>>>> $10 a day part time in a gunsmith shop (:-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Disregarding "Home Defense" mentioned in your
>>>>>>>>> reference above, my
>>>>>>>>> grandfather used a Winchester lever action 38-55 as a
>>>>>>>>> "deer rifle" and
>>>>>>>>> killed his one deer a year under his license (and
>>>>>>>>> sometimes two if
>>>>>>>>> the Game Warden was down at the other end of the
>>>>>>>>> state) and had one
>>>>>>>>> packet of, I think it was 20 rounds, that he'd been
>>>>>>>>> using for
>>>>>>>>> something like 10 years.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which might say something about AR-15's, and other
>>>>>>>>> shoot em up,
>>>>>>>>> bang,bang, guns as hunting rifles (:-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>>> We've been over this here on RBT at least a dozen times
>>>>>>>> over
>>>>>>>> the years. My AR-15 repeats at the exact same speed as my
>>>>>>>> .38 Police Special revolver. Both are faster than
>>>>>>>> girlfriend's inherited .30 Winchester vintage lever,
>>>>>>>> but not
>>>>>>>> by all that much. None of those are magic lead-spraying
>>>>>>>> pew-pew-pew television weapons.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Andrew Muzi
>>>>>>>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>>>>>>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your AR-15 has a 20 or 30 shot magazine. Most likely
>>>>>>> .223 Remington or NATO ammunition. Your Police Special
>>>>>>> has 6 shots. The 5 shot S&W only became common fairly
>>>>>>> recently. The lever action likely has a 7 or 8 or 9
>>>>>>> round tube fed ammo holding system. So roughly the
>>>>>>> AR-15 has 5 times the revolver capacity and 4 times the
>>>>>>> rifle capacity. You can easily fire two shots per
>>>>>>> second. Bang-bang. Thats one second. Maybe you can
>>>>>>> even fire three rounds per second.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At the June 12, 2016 Orlando Florida mass shooting at a
>>>>>>> GAY nightclub, a SIG Sauer MCX semi-automatic rifle (it
>>>>>>> is an AR-15) and a Glock 17 semi auto pistol were used.
>>>>>>> 49 people killed, 53 wounded.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting#Weapons
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "In less than five minutes, Mateen had fired
>>>>>>> approximately 200 rounds, pausing only to reload." That
>>>>>>> works out to a little more than 40 rounds per minute.
>>>>>>> One and a half seconds per shot. Not too fast I guess.
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_MCX
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock#Glock_17
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It wasn't until October 2017, a whole year and 3 months
>>>>>>> later, that Orlando lost its crown as the biggest mass
>>>>>>> shooting in US history. That is when the Las Vegas
>>>>>>> concert killer used the bump stock device on his AR-15
>>>>>>> rifles to kill 60 and wound 411.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting#Weaponry
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Paddock was found to have fired a total of 1,058 rounds
>>>>>>> from fifteen of the firearms: 1,049 from twelve
>>>>>>> AR-15-style rifles, eight from two AR-10-style rifles,
>>>>>>> and the round used to kill himself from the Smith &
>>>>>>> Wesson revolver."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> meh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And every day (more than usual this week) there are multiple
>>>>>> stabbings and sword/machete murders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.wate.com/news/sword-attack-in-indiana-leaves-2-dead-1-wounded/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Sword-wielding-man-shot-by-New-Braunfels-police-16836088.php
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/police-find-man-decapitating-girlfriend-with-machete-in-philadelphia/ar-AATJCVg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/man-accused-of-attacking-lakewood-store-employee-with-machete-police-say/ar-AATJXiV
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.thedailybeast.com/karla-jackelin-morales-allegedly-lured-jose-villanueva-to-ms-13-machete-death-and-skipped-bail
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I skip the stabbings/slashings with knives/razors which are
>>>>>> frequent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Turns out that by not prosecuting/detaining criminals,
>>>>>> mayhem results. Weapon of choice may vary but the results
>>>>>> are fungibly similar.
>>>>>
>>>>> But when you say "GUN" Ohoooo it is so scary.
>>>>>
>>>>> As has been discussed before, the FBI records show that in
>>>>> 2015 "long
>>>>> guns" killed 463 victims and hands and feet killed 651.
>>>>>
>>>>> But a news article announcing "Oh Yes, he was kicked to
>>>>> death" is sort
>>>>> of, well sort of every day, and far less thrilling that
>>>>> "He was shot,
>>>>> 17 times!"
>>>>
>>>> As we've mentioned before: Data on U.S. gun crime generally
>>>> shows a small number of homicides by "long gun" or "rifle."
>>>> But it shows a large number by unspecified "firearm," a
>>>> separate category from "handgun." I assume that means that
>>>> the type of gun was undetermined. And I think it's
>>>> reasonable to say a large portion of those undetermined
>>>> cases are in fact ARs.
>>>>
>>>> And regarding hands and feet vs. semi-automatic, easily
>>>> customized, large magazine assault-style rifles: Can we
>>>> again consider advantages and disadvantages? I shouldn't
>>>> have to point out that hands and feet have countless
>>>> practical uses, and that life without them would be
>>>> difficult. (The same is true of knives, BTW.)
>>>>
>>>> What are the advantages and disadvantages of AR-style
>>>> weaponry? Well, a disadvantage is that those guns are the
>>>> weapon of choice for crackpots choosing to blow away bunches
>>>> of kids in a schoolroom, a bunch of people in a night club,
>>>> a bunch of people at a music concert, etc. Also, their
>>>> widespread presence makes the job of a cop much more
>>>> difficult, since it's easy for them to be out-gunned.
>>>> (That's something almost no other developed countries have
>>>> to worry about).
>>>>
>>>> The AR advantages are so slight that most truly civilized
>>>> countries do perfectly well with roughly zero of them in
>>>> circulation. In fact, those other countries do far better.
>>>>
>>>> What _are_ the advantages of AR-style guns? "Dude, they're
>>>> cool! And when I play with mine or shoot at those silhouette
>>>> targets, I can pretend I'm a really tough commando defending
>>>> my home against ... um, them other people. Even though I'm
>>>> really a feeble 77 year old pot bellied guy with memory
>>>> problems."
>>>>
>>>> "Really cool" doesn't outweigh "27 schoolkids murdered" in
>>>> my book.
>>>>
>>> As was noted by Mr Bach above, every problem is not a
>>> crisis. You're not innumerate. There are more than 20
>>> million AR-15 in the US of A, the greater bulk of which just
>>> passed another uneventful day, oiled and cased.
>>
>> Exactly how would a gun homicide have a type of gun "indeterminate"? While there are rifles that shoot some handgun calibers the velocity of the bullet is enough different to determine whether it was a rifle or a handgun. IE Henry lever action rifles are made that shoot .357 but the velocity and rifling are substantially different. If you can recover a bullet you can almost always identify the brand of gun it was fired from. Sometimes even the year of manufacture.
>>
>
>As a longtime reader of daily crime reports, there's no
>mystery here.
>
>Consider that before the prevalence of 9mm, the #1 most
>frequently lethal round was .22LR. There's no way to
>determine which format was employed, both are popular.
>
>Back to 9mm:
>https://www.barrettrifles.com/9mm-rifles
>
well, 9mm is 0.354" and .35 caliber guns are not uncommon, dating back
to at least 1906 with the .35 Remington cartridge (:-)

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:47:40 PM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:29:38 PM UTC-8, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 3:14:50 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> > >
> > > Add in through wounds, fragments unrecovered, and you have
> > > an 'indeterminate' area.
> > > --
> > > Andrew Muzi
> > > <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> > > Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> > I think there is a risk of interpreting indeterminant to mean they couldn't tell, rather than that they didn't say.
> >
> > Certainly for a suicide, if you don't have the gun available, there's a problem!
> >
> > For a homicide it would be very rare to mistake a rifle wound for a pistol wound - true there are some carbines that fire pistol rounds, are these really likely to be common murder weapons? They are not concealable or commonly carried by criminals.
> It is rare for rifles to shoot pistol rounds and when they do they have higher velocities which are easily distinguished by the damage from the bullet. It is extremely rare that rifles are used even in mass murders. The one in that school had the purp carrying an AR-14 I believe, but he committed all of the killings with a hand gun. ONE teacher with a handgun would have stopped that shooting on the spot. People that commit mass murders do so because they believe, rightfully in California at least, that they will be completely unopposed.

Tommy, way back in the 1870s, that is 1870s, 150 years ago, it was very common to have revolvers and rifles shooting the same caliber. Ever hear of the .44-40 Winchester cartridge? Created in 1873. The Colt Peacemaker single action pistol was also chambered for this round. Not all SAA or Peacemakers were in .45 Colt! And the Winchester 1873 lever action rifle shot it too. This is the infamous Winchester lever action rifle you see in every western movie and TV show. Below is a link for this cartridge. But there were several other pistol/rifle cartridges from the late 1800s besides this one. And today, it is very easy to buy rifles that shoot .357 Magnum, .44 Magnum, .44 Special, and 9mm cartridges. Some people like having a pistol and rifle that fire the same cartridge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.44-40_Winchester

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:47:40 PM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:29:38 PM UTC-8, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 3:14:50 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> > >
> > > Add in through wounds, fragments unrecovered, and you have
> > > an 'indeterminate' area.
> > > --
> > > Andrew Muzi
> > > <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> > > Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> > I think there is a risk of interpreting indeterminant to mean they couldn't tell, rather than that they didn't say.
> >
> > Certainly for a suicide, if you don't have the gun available, there's a problem!
> >
> > For a homicide it would be very rare to mistake a rifle wound for a pistol wound - true there are some carbines that fire pistol rounds, are these really likely to be common murder weapons? They are not concealable or commonly carried by criminals.
> It is rare for rifles to shoot pistol rounds and when they do they have higher velocities which are easily distinguished by the damage from the bullet. It is extremely rare that rifles are used even in mass murders. The one in that school had the purp carrying an AR-14 I believe, but he committed all of the killings with a hand gun. ONE teacher with a handgun would have stopped that shooting on the spot. People that commit mass murders do so because they believe, rightfully in California at least, that they will be completely unopposed.

So you want to arm teachers with handguns? I think Texas has tried to pass laws like this. Do you think its a good idea? I know the dream, illusion, fantasy, of the one armed good guy shooting the bad guy is a popular myth amongst some. Like you I guess. But is it practical? I know you never ever even attended school. But let me tell you about it. From about 7th grade onwards, I was physically able to beat up and physically overwhelm all but a few of my teachers. Male or female. Now there were a few male teachers that only a few of the boys could take in a fight. The big future football linemen boys could likely take them. But none of the regular sized kids. Teachers are not Arnold Schwarzenegger sized. They are generally average sized and likely old. And junior high and high school boys are getting up there in size and strength. They are not at their peak, but they are not weak. And more than strong enough to physically dominate all women. We are not talking about elementary school kids. So you think its good policy to have readily accessible guns available for kids, young adults, to use? I use the term "readily accessible guns" because almost all junior high and high school males could easily take a gun from a teacher.

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 8:18:55 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 11:29:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 2/12/2022 1:35 AM, John B. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 20:46:19 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2/11/2022 8:37 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 7:35:23 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>> On 2/11/2022 7:16 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:38:47 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 2/10/2022 10:51 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 20:11:51 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2022 7:04 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:44:34 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2022 1:43 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It might be that the Air Gun was the most effective weapon that the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> expedition carried as while I can't find a specific statement that the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Girandoni was rifled...
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It was rifled.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> See https://youtu.be/2dZLeEUE940?t=189
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Interesting. Very innovative. The first rifled long guns in the U.S.
> >>>>>>>>>> army date to about 1800 and in the British Army about the same period.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I defer to you on official War Department procurement, since
> >>>>>>>>> I have no idea.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But I do know something about our Founding. Paul Revere and
> >>>>>>>>> William Dawes left Boston on horseback at night* because
> >>>>>>>>> some 700-odd of the British garrison had marched out at
> >>>>>>>>> midnight* for Lexington where the most accurate _long
> >>>>>>>>> rifles_ on the continent were manufactured. They took a
> >>>>>>>>> circuitous route but did arrive at Lexington in time and the
> >>>>>>>>> results, including the forced withdrawal at Concord, were
> >>>>>>>>> our 'shot heard round the world'. A result in our favor was
> >>>>>>>>> critically due to the superior range and accuracy of long
> >>>>>>>>> rifles against smooth bore British issue muskets.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 18 April, 1775.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> * 1775! No streetlights, no headlamps, no paved rural roads.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes, I've read the stories and yes, British troops were marching to
> >>>>>>>> seize stores of gun powder and some arms at Lexington, and yes, I've
> >>>>>>>> read stories about the Minute Men snipping from behind fences but I
> >>>>>>>> doubt greatly whether many rifles were used, although admittedly this
> >>>>>>>> seems to be a constant theme in U.S. history.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But, where did these "rifles" come from? The average farmer had no
> >>>>>>>> requirement for an expensive rifled gun, a smooth bore was far cheaper
> >>>>>>>> and far more versatile for use on the farm.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Additionally there were no organized munitions makers in the U.S.. and
> >>>>>>>> rifles were made one at a time, and were extremely expensive. Kenneth
> >>>>>>>> Roberts in the historical novel Arundel, based on actual diaries of
> >>>>>>>> the 1775 Quebec Campaign, mentions used rifles with accoutrements
> >>>>>>>> exchanged for 12-15 English pounds. A smooth bore at the time might be
> >>>>>>>> 2 pounds and 4 shillings. To get an idea of how much this was there is
> >>>>>>>> a record of a John Moll paying 45 pounds for a 60’ X 230’ building lot
> >>>>>>>> in Allentown in 1772. And, William Carlin, a tailor in colonial
> >>>>>>>> Alexandria who made clothes for field hands as well as the planter
> >>>>>>>> elite, charged £3-5 for an ordinary wool suit.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Some of the greatest support furnished by the French to the
> >>>>>>>> revolutionists was in the form of muskets and gun power. In the
> >>>>>>>> Battles of Saratoga on September 19 and October 7, 1777, it is
> >>>>>>>> estimated that as many as nine out of 10 American soldiers carried
> >>>>>>>> French arms, and were completely dependent on French gunpowder.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I was engaged in a discussion on currency debasement policy
> >>>>>>> (popularly called 'inflation') and remembered your post
> >>>>>>> above so I checked the NPV of 14 Sterling in 1775.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Current value 2400 pounds or US$3200. For reference, your
> >>>>>>> average popular modern rifle runs somewhere around $2000.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So you make a good point that premium equipment of the era
> >>>>>>> was pricey. No wonder Louis sent muskets!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Typical selections:
> >>>>>>> https://blog.gunassociation.org/best-rifles/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/guns/rifles/centerfire/2011/11/20-best-semi-automatic-rifles-big-game-hunting/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> where $3000 rifles are at the far end of 'popular', most are
> >>>>>>> below $2000, and the range is $800 to $7000
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I was "into" gun smithing for a while and actually gave some thought
> >>>>>> to doing it as a business after I left the Military, and "back then",
> >>>>>> say the 1960's a good "deer rifle" with iron sights was in the $200
> >>>>>> range. And, disregarding my Military pay and allowances, I was making
> >>>>>> $10 a day part time in a gunsmith shop (:-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Disregarding "Home Defense" mentioned in your reference above, my
> >>>>>> grandfather used a Winchester lever action 38-55 as a "deer rifle" and
> >>>>>> killed his one deer a year under his license (and sometimes two if
> >>>>>> the Game Warden was down at the other end of the state) and had one
> >>>>>> packet of, I think it was 20 rounds, that he'd been using for
> >>>>>> something like 10 years.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Which might say something about AR-15's, and other shoot em up,
> >>>>>> bang,bang, guns as hunting rifles (:-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Wrong.
> >>>>> We've been over this here on RBT at least a dozen times over
> >>>>> the years. My AR-15 repeats at the exact same speed as my
> >>>>> .38 Police Special revolver. Both are faster than
> >>>>> girlfriend's inherited .30 Winchester vintage lever, but not
> >>>>> by all that much. None of those are magic lead-spraying
> >>>>> pew-pew-pew television weapons.
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Andrew Muzi
> >>>>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> >>>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> >>>>
> >>>> Your AR-15 has a 20 or 30 shot magazine. Most likely .223 Remington or NATO ammunition. Your Police Special has 6 shots. The 5 shot S&W only became common fairly recently. The lever action likely has a 7 or 8 or 9 round tube fed ammo holding system. So roughly the AR-15 has 5 times the revolver capacity and 4 times the rifle capacity. You can easily fire two shots per second. Bang-bang. Thats one second. Maybe you can even fire three rounds per second.
> >>>>
> >>>> At the June 12, 2016 Orlando Florida mass shooting at a GAY nightclub, a SIG Sauer MCX semi-automatic rifle (it is an AR-15) and a Glock 17 semi auto pistol were used. 49 people killed, 53 wounded.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting#Weapons
> >>>> "In less than five minutes, Mateen had fired approximately 200 rounds, pausing only to reload." That works out to a little more than 40 rounds per minute. One and a half seconds per shot. Not too fast I guess.
> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_MCX
> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock#Glock_17
> >>>>
> >>>> It wasn't until October 2017, a whole year and 3 months later, that Orlando lost its crown as the biggest mass shooting in US history. That is when the Las Vegas concert killer used the bump stock device on his AR-15 rifles to kill 60 and wound 411.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting#Weaponry
> >>>> "Paddock was found to have fired a total of 1,058 rounds from fifteen of the firearms: 1,049 from twelve AR-15-style rifles, eight from two AR-10-style rifles, and the round used to kill himself from the Smith & Wesson revolver."
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> meh.
> >>>
> >>> And every day (more than usual this week) there are multiple
> >>> stabbings and sword/machete murders.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.wate.com/news/sword-attack-in-indiana-leaves-2-dead-1-wounded/
> >>>
> >>> https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Sword-wielding-man-shot-by-New-Braunfels-police-16836088.php
> >>>
> >>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/police-find-man-decapitating-girlfriend-with-machete-in-philadelphia/ar-AATJCVg
> >>>
> >>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/man-accused-of-attacking-lakewood-store-employee-with-machete-police-say/ar-AATJXiV
> >>>
> >>> https://www.thedailybeast.com/karla-jackelin-morales-allegedly-lured-jose-villanueva-to-ms-13-machete-death-and-skipped-bail
> >>>
> >>> I skip the stabbings/slashings with knives/razors which are
> >>> frequent.
> >>>
> >>> Turns out that by not prosecuting/detaining criminals,
> >>> mayhem results. Weapon of choice may vary but the results
> >>> are fungibly similar.
> >>
> >> But when you say "GUN" Ohoooo it is so scary.
> >>
> >> As has been discussed before, the FBI records show that in 2015 "long
> >> guns" killed 463 victims and hands and feet killed 651.
> >>
> >> But a news article announcing "Oh Yes, he was kicked to death" is sort
> >> of, well sort of every day, and far less thrilling that "He was shot,
> >> 17 times!"
> >
> >As we've mentioned before: Data on U.S. gun crime generally shows a
> >small number of homicides by "long gun" or "rifle." But it shows a large
> >number by unspecified "firearm," a separate category from "handgun." I
> >assume that means that the type of gun was undetermined. And I think
> >it's reasonable to say a large portion of those undetermined cases are
> >in fact ARs.
> Is it reasonable? Or simply another example of "gun terror"?
>
> Looking at the chart
> https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
> we see that of the total 10,258 cases of a firearm used in a homicide
> some 6,368, or 62% were hand guns and some 3,281 or 31% were stated to
> be "not noted".
>
> Is it reasonable to argue that every one of these "not noted" firearms
> was a pistol? Or simply a fantasy to justify a pre-conceived notion.
> >And regarding hands and feet vs. semi-automatic, easily customized,
> >large magazine assault-style rifles: Can we again consider advantages
> >and disadvantages? I shouldn't have to point out that hands and feet
> >have countless practical uses, and that life without them would be
> >difficult. (The same is true of knives, BTW.)
> So you would condone beating someone to death with hands and feet
> because they have practical uses? And knives? O.K. I guess....
>
> BUT WAIT! In 1994, about 800,000 Tutsi people were slaughtered in
> Rwanda by ethnic Hutu extremists, largely with clubs and knives. Then
> the Largely Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) seized power and
> returned the favor, killing thousands of Hutu's. Again largely with
> knives and clubs.
>
> .>
> >What are the advantages and disadvantages of AR-style weaponry? Well, a
> >disadvantage is that those guns are the weapon of choice for crackpots
> >choosing to blow away bunches of kids in a schoolroom, a bunch of people
> >in a night club, a bunch of people at a music concert, etc. Also, their
> >widespread presence makes the job of a cop much more difficult, since
> >it's easy for them to be out-gunned. (That's something almost no other
> >developed countries have to worry about).
> Well, one might ask, what are the advantages and disadvantages of, oh
> say, plastic bicycles (selling for upwards of $10,000)? Or even what
> is the advantage and disadvantage of a bicycle as it seems that
> something less then 9% of U.S. families do not own a car and other
> sources state that in 2019 some 267,894,860 autos were registered in
> the U.S.
>
> Very much an affection one might say - "Oh! Look! Everybody! I'm
> riding to work today on my bicycle! But of course, that is only on
> days when it isn't raining or too cold to ride, when we take the BMW.
>
> Errr Frank, the two most popular "long guns" used by U.S. police
> forces are the 870 Remington shotgun and the Colt M4 Carbine.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 14:45:48 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 12:56:20 PM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 10:52:00 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > ALL Army Generals including Robert E. Lee were educated in West Point.
>> And as usual, Tommy bloviates bullshit. Since WWII there have been 25 Chiefs of Staff of the United States Army. Of those, the following 6 (24%) did _not_ go to west point:
>>
>> George Catlett Marshall Jr. in 1939 Marshall became acting Chief of Staff, and then the 15th Chief of Staff, a position he held until the war's end in 1945. Marshall graduated from the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) in 1901.
>>
>> George Henry Decker served as Chief of Staff of the United States Army from 1960 to 1962. Decker attended Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania, receiving an economics degree in 1924.
>>
>> Frederick Carlton Weyand served as the 28th Chief of Staff of the United States Army from 1974 to 1976. Weyand was commissioned a second lieutenant in the United States Army through the Reserve Officers Training Corps program at the University of California, Berkeley, where he graduated in May 1938.
>>
>> Gordon Russell Sullivan served as the 32nd Chief of Staff of the Army and as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Sullivan also served as acting Secretary of the Army. He was commissioned a second lieutenant of Armor and awarded a Bachelor of Arts degree in history from Norwich University in 1959.
>>
>> Peter Jan Schoomaker served as the 35th Chief of Staff of the United States Army from August 1, 2003 to April 10, 2007. Schoomaker graduated from the University of Wyoming in 1969 with a Bachelor of Science degree in education administration.
>>
>> Mark Alexander Milley serves as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He previously served as the 39th chief of staff of the Army from August 14, 2015 to August 9, 2019. Milley Princeton University on a hockey scholarship.[5][11] There, he joined the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC)[12] and in 1980 graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in politics.
>>
>> That's just Chiefs of Staff of the United States Army. Further down the chain of command the ratio of non-West Point graduates to West Point graduates becomes much higher.
>>
>> Feel free to post any links disputing the information above - or shut the fuck up - and no, the fact that I was never in the army doesn't exclude me from posting the facts above - hint: you weren't in the army either.
>> > When you act like a pin-head, you get treated as a pin-head.
>> Which explains the treatment of you in this forum quite succinctly.
>>
>> "Magazines available up to 30 rounds for visiting people like Flunky and all of his close friends at the gay bath houses. " - Tom Kunich
>
>I have some information for you turd breath, Chief of Staff is NOT a military appointment - it is political. Or that stupid bastard that is the there presently couldn't even get in the door. One of the thousands of things wrong with you is that you have never been anywhere, done anything or have any knowledge of anything. Don't worry though, you don't have to worry about being drafted after your boy Biden starts a war with Russia,. To get in the military you have to have a minimum IQ of 83 and on the best day of your life you couldn't even dream that large.

"To get in the military you have to have a minimum IQ of 83"

Wrong again tommy. There is no minimum IQ level to join the military
however there is a minimum AFTQ (for enlisted folks) depending on the
branch of service.And there is a different level of score required
depending on whether you have a High School education or not.
http://www.militaryaptitudetests.com/asvab

You seem to be batting "0" today.
But then, I guess you probably don't want to ruin your perfect score
to date.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 8:30:46 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 12:07:20 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 2/12/2022 8:43 AM, Tim R wrote:
> >> At the risk of straying off bicycle tire valves and onto gun control,
> >> ...
> >>
> >> AR-15. I think they are the most popular gun sold now, lots of them out there. Few of them apparently misused, so technically probably the safest gun we have. (The US has more gun deaths than other countries. But we also have many times more guns than other countries. A smaller percentage of our guns are misused, therefore the conclusion is gun ownership is safer in the US than elsewhere.)
> >
> >That's specious logic. By that standard, the way to make guns "safer"
> >would be to legally require the ownership of ten loaded guns by every
> >American - including every violent felon, every paranoid nut case,
> >little kid. Sure, the death count would soar, but since only one gun
> >could be shot at a time (usually) the percentage of guns not used in
> >homicide would be very low.
> >
> >Nobody but gun companies should give positive credit to the number of
> >guns in circulation. The metric for gun safety should be the number of
> >gun deaths per capita. And the U.S. is the worst among its peers by that
> >metric, something like tenth out of ~200 nations, with only places
> >similar to Venezuela or Honduras being worse.
> >https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country
> >Hell, our rate is six times that of Canada, a hunting paradise.
> >
> >> In the US there are roughly 14,000 gun homicides and 22,000 gun suicides every year, doesn't vary by much. Of those, less than .25% of homicides are with rifles, less than .10% of suicides are with rifles.
> >
> >You're ignoring the large number of deaths by unspecified firearm, many
> >of which are probably AR or other long guns.
> >
> >> Yes, the two combined don't add up to half a percent, yet it is the only gun being considered for a ban.
> >
> >Well, there are lots of guns effectively banned, not to mention other
> >weapons. But again, advantages vs. disadvantages: AR guns make a guy
> >feel tough and macho. AR guns can kill a couple dozen schoolkids in a
> >few minutes.
> >
> >> I think this is inherently racist. I think these guns are more scary to white people. People of color are probably much more at risk from 9mm pistols.
> >
> >Hmm. "More scary?" I think rapid fire, combat optimized, large magazine
> >guns are scary to "people of [non-white] color" as well as white people.
> >When gang bangers and drug dealers are frequently arrested in possession
> >of such weaponry, it has an effect; and more of those arrests seem to
> >happen in neighborhoods that are less white.
> >
> >> But at any rate, completely eliminating the AR type weapon by a total confiscation would have zero detectable effect on gun deaths in the US.
> >
> >It seems to have pretty much eliminated mass shootings in Australia,
> >which is something worth achieving. And certainly, among developed
> >nations, the U.S. attitude toward guns is a gross outlier. So is the
> >U.S. gun fatality rate.
> But Frank, the rate of auto deaths in the U.S. is 12.4/100,000 and
> deaths by firearm is 12.21. Shouldn't we "go for the gold" and solve
> the car problem first and when we solve that problem then move on to
> guns?

I'm guessing we use a cost benefit ratio for most things. The benefits of the car outweigh the costs of outlawing them and saving thousands of lives. Back in the 1920s or 1930s we outlawed machine guns for the civilian population. The government decided the benefit of stopping easy mass murder was worth more than the cost of impinging on citizen rights.

>
> In comparison Canada has an auto death rate of 1.94, the U.K. - 0.20,
> France - 2.33, Germany - 1.04, Italy - 1.13...
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:29:38 PM UTC-8, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 3:14:50 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> >
> > Add in through wounds, fragments unrecovered, and you have
> > an 'indeterminate' area.
> > --
> > Andrew Muzi
> > <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> > Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> I think there is a risk of interpreting indeterminant to mean they couldn't tell, rather than that they didn't say.
>
> Certainly for a suicide, if you don't have the gun available, there's a problem!
>
> For a homicide it would be very rare to mistake a rifle wound for a pistol wound - true there are some carbines that fire pistol rounds, are these really likely to be common murder weapons? They are not concealable or commonly carried by criminals.

The city near me is having trouble with gang bangers shooting it out on the streets. Cops are shown on TV marking the
locations of multiple shell casings on the street. Those could have come from fancy exotic handguns, but I think AR style
rifles are much easier to get.

Recently there was a kid, maybe about age 4, killed while sitting inside a home. I don't think they ever determined what
kind of gun did that.

- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:32:16 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 03:43:00 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 1:04:02 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 20:43:11 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >38 Police Special: "pew pew pew pew pew pew" and slowly
> >> >reload.
> >> >
> >> >Typical AR15: "pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew
> >> >pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew."
> >> >
> >> >You know, for hunting.
> >> Well... people who never race by racing bicycles (:-) and even worse,
> >> I've got a friend lives on a 45 ft boat and bought "mountain bike"
> >
> >The next time you hear of a racing bicycle being used to murder 26 children at an elementary school, let us know.
> Good Lord! 26 is a paltry number. Timothy McVeigh got 168 without
> firing a shot.
>
> (maybe we should outlaw rental trucks?)

Again, please try to think in terms of benefits vs. detriments.

The benefits of rental trucks are many and various.

The benefits of AR--style rifles is the owner gets to feel like a tough guy when he plays with his toy.

- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:18:55 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 11:29:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Can we again consider advantages
> >and disadvantages? I shouldn't have to point out that hands and feet
> >have countless practical uses, and that life without them would be
> >difficult. (The same is true of knives, BTW.)
> So you would condone beating someone to death with hands and feet
> because they have practical uses? And knives? O.K. I guess....
>
> BUT WAIT! In 1994, about 800,000 Tutsi people were slaughtered in
> Rwanda by ethnic Hutu extremists, largely with clubs and knives. Then
> the Largely Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) seized power and
> returned the favor, killing thousands of Hutu's. Again largely with
> knives and clubs.

ISTM that the problems of Tutsis vs. Hutus in 1994 are considerably different than the problem of
gun violence in the U.S. in 2022. There probably are groups discussing Rwanda's problems. I'm not
interested in that change of topic.

> >What are the advantages and disadvantages of AR-style weaponry? Well, a
> >disadvantage is that those guns are the weapon of choice for crackpots
> >choosing to blow away bunches of kids in a schoolroom, a bunch of people
> >in a night club, a bunch of people at a music concert, etc. Also, their
> >widespread presence makes the job of a cop much more difficult, since
> >it's easy for them to be out-gunned. (That's something almost no other
> >developed countries have to worry about).
> Well, one might ask, what are the advantages and disadvantages of, oh
> say, plastic bicycles (selling for upwards of $10,000)? Or even what
> is the advantage and disadvantage of a bicycle as it seems that
> something less then 9% of U.S. families do not own a car and other
> sources state that in 2019 some 267,894,860 autos were registered in
> the U.S.

I don't believe $10,000 bicycles have any significant advantage for any but the most
elite competitive riders. But that doesn't mean their sale should be restricted. Why? Because
there's no particular societal disadvantage. Despite this humorous song, very few people
are murdered using bicycles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_11JDYcZX44
(To explain: Spoons are disparaged by many players at music sessions. They are
loud and unpleasant, and loved by people who won't take time to learn a real instrument.)

And as I've documented dozens of times, the risks of bicycling are tiny, and totally dwarfed
by the benefits.

> >The AR advantages are so slight that most truly civilized countries do
> >perfectly well with roughly zero of them in circulation. In fact, those
> >other countries do far better.
> >
> >What _are_ the advantages of AR-style guns? "Dude, they're cool! And
> >when I play with mine or shoot at those silhouette targets, I can
> >pretend I'm a really tough commando defending my home against ... um,
> >them other people. Even though I'm really a feeble 77 year old pot
> >bellied guy with memory problems."
> >
> >"Really cool" doesn't outweigh "27 schoolkids murdered" in my book.

> And just think! some 800+- die every year on bicycles, year after year
> after year. Nearly 10,000 since 2007, such carnage MUST be stopped!

John, you're having great trouble with the Benefits vs. Detriments concept.
What are the real benefits of letting every half-wit buy a rapid fire, large magazine,
highly portable, highly modifiable assault-style rifle? And if the advantages are
really great, how is it that almost no developed countries other than the U.S
allow their free purchase?

Heck, do you have one where you live? If not, how are you getting by?

- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:30:46 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>
> But Frank, the rate of auto deaths in the U.S. is 12.4/100,000 and
> deaths by firearm is 12.21. Shouldn't we "go for the gold" and solve
> the car problem first and when we solve that problem then move on to
> guns?

Advantages vs. disadvantages, John. I can list lots of advantages for
cars. What are the advantages of an AR rifle for an ordinary citizen?

(Do you own a car? Do you own an AR?)

- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:43:52 -0800 (PST), Tim R
<timothy42bach@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:24:12 PM UTC-5, Tim R wrote:
>
>Some discussion earlier about the military mindset and tradition.
>
>I read a fascinating book about the evolution of the military long arm over
time, and there was violent disagreement from the earliest days over
the choice of caliber which continues to this day. The title escapes
me.
>
>The original musket was in .69 caliber. By the Civil War this had shrunk to .58, over the bitter resistance of what they called gravel bellies. Soldiers could carry more ammo, so they British sshot more ammo, so somebody had to pay for, procure, and deliver more ammo.
>
>.45 caliber owned the late 1800s, with the .30 appearing near the end. The Phillippine conflict still had mostly trapdoor springfields in .45 but I the .30 Krag was used. Every reduction was fought ferociously by the oldtimers.

The Philippine thing was from about 1899 to 1913, including the Moro
Rebellion. The Krag was issued, at least in limited quantities - I've
read 30,000 - during the Spanish-American War, in 1898. I would have
thought that they would have been available in the Philippines within
a reasonable time after August 1898,

Supposedly the 1911 Colt .45 was made the "service pistol" to stop
charging Moro's although I suspect that in fact the U.S had been
looking at "automatic" to replace the revolver before the 1911.

>
>There were extensive tests of lethality (sheep I think), range, and accuracy at Aberdeen Proving ground, and out to about 1000 yards the .276 did as well as the larger calibers.
>
>In Vietnam we went to .223, which I think is the sweet spot - smaller loses range and penetration, larger loses ability to carry enough ammo and recoil hurts accuracy for most soldiers. (I recently rewatched Zulu. Those rifles were Martini-Henrys in .577/.450, meaning they were a .577 cartridge case necked down to fire a .450 caliber 480 grain bullet. Recoil had to be extreme with that loading, and the average soldier probably weighed about 140.)

A couple of comments. Recoil of a 9 pound, black powder, weapon is
really not severe. The Garand weighed about that weight and I shot on
the Base Rifle team for a bit and had no problems with "rapid fire"
with standard issue ammunition. The .577/450 had a muzzle energy of
about 1,940 ft·lb and the 30-06, 180 gr., about 2,913 ft·lbf

Re the M-16 type. Yes the Infantry "basic load" was about 7 x 30
rounds = 210 rounds for the M16 and only 80 for the Garand. But on the
other hand the firing rate for the M16 was ~700 RPM and 40 - 50 RPM
for the Garand. Sustained fire, disregarding reloading time was about
20 seconds for the M16 and 96 seconds for the Garand (:-)

And troops did run out of ammunition. At least one unit of Aussies ran
out of ammo during the Battle of Long Tan and without U.S. helicopter
support would have been overrun.

As an aside, I got to know a number of Special Forces troops while at
Nha Trang - I used to eat in their Mess - and I was told that they
could "carry any gun they wanted to" and surprisingly a number seemed
to refer AK-47's.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 18:31:38 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 5:57:28 PM UTC-6, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 14:45:48 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >To get in the military you have to have a minimum IQ of 83 ...
>>
>> Nope.
>> <https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/after-service/201801/are-military-members-the-lowest-our-low>
>> US military does not use an IQ score, but instead uses the similar
>> ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) test where the
>> score is the applicants percentile score when compared to other
>> applicants.
>>
>> "To qualify, recruits must score higher than roughly one-third of all
>> who take the ASVAB. The lowest acceptable percentile score to join is
>> 36 for the Air Force, 35 for the Navy, 32 for the Marine Corps, and 31
>> for the Army."
>>
>> "By definition, the worst test taker who makes it into the military
>> still scores higher than one-third of his or her peers. The military
>> intentionally slices off the bottom third of test-takers, not allowing
>> them to join."
>>
>> Tom. Bad news:
>> "Pew reports that 98 percent of the enlisted force has at least a high
>> school diploma."
>> That puts you in the lowest 2% of the military.
>> <https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2011/10/05/chapter-6-a-profile-of-the-modern-military/>
>> See the section under "Education Levels" for more details. Maybe 2%
>> is a bit optimistic:
>> "About eight-in-ten active-duty military personnel are high school
>> graduates or have completed at least a year of college or other
>> postsecondary training. Nearly two-in-ten (17.9%) are college
>> graduates or have an advanced degree, while only 0.6% never finished
>> high school."
>>
>> Drivel:
>> "Replacing a gunner who scores around the 20th percentile with one who
>> scores around the 55th percentile improves the likelihood of hitting a
>> target by 34 percent."
>> --
>> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
>> PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
>> Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
>> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
>
>Is this correct? Or a better question, does the above testing apply to officer candidates or to non officer enlisted personnel? I have seen numerous articles about the recruiting of low ranking enlisted personnel and they do everything they can to get anyone to fill the spots. So it seems hard to believe they would then throw out 1/3 of the recruits because they are too dumb. Through out history, the military has always been considered a last resort option for anyone who had no hope upon leaving high school. Join the military as a private and get a job and money and training. Officer is different. Since you have to have a college degree to become an officer in the military. And if you obtain a college degree, then you probably have a brightish future. I should state that the above applies from about 1975 until today. From roughly 1975 and back, all the high school graduating men had to go to college, serve a couple years in the military, or have a physical defect
exemption.
>But from about 1975 onwards, the only ones going into the military were the ones who wanted to. And for many it was the only economic option.

Yes the military does test both for the enlisted and commissioned
troops. The different services has different acceptance scores and
commissioned and non-commissioned also have different acceptance
scores.
see
https://www.officialasvab.com/researchers/history-of-military-testing/
http://www.militaryaptitudetests.com/asvab

Way back when I enlisted, 1952, we took about of week of tests after
being sworn in so it wasn't an "entrance test" but apparently aimed at
the sort of training you would get or job you would be assigned. It
was very noticeable that blokes that you had sort of thought as a bit
stupid seemed to end up being assigned to either the Cooks and Bakers
or Base Supply.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 11:12:18 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:43:52 -0800 (PST), Tim R
> <timoth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:24:12 PM UTC-5, Tim R wrote:
> >
> >Some discussion earlier about the military mindset and tradition.
> >
> >I read a fascinating book about the evolution of the military long arm over
> time, and there was violent disagreement from the earliest days over
> the choice of caliber which continues to this day. The title escapes
> me.
> >
> >The original musket was in .69 caliber. By the Civil War this had shrunk to .58, over the bitter resistance of what they called gravel bellies. Soldiers could carry more ammo, so they British sshot more ammo, so somebody had to pay for, procure, and deliver more ammo.
> >
> >.45 caliber owned the late 1800s, with the .30 appearing near the end. The Phillippine conflict still had mostly trapdoor springfields in .45 but I the .30 Krag was used. Every reduction was fought ferociously by the oldtimers.
> The Philippine thing was from about 1899 to 1913, including the Moro
> Rebellion. The Krag was issued, at least in limited quantities - I've
> read 30,000 - during the Spanish-American War, in 1898. I would have
> thought that they would have been available in the Philippines within
> a reasonable time after August 1898,
>
> Supposedly the 1911 Colt .45 was made the "service pistol" to stop
> charging Moro's although I suspect that in fact the U.S had been
> looking at "automatic" to replace the revolver before the 1911.
> >
> >There were extensive tests of lethality (sheep I think), range, and accuracy at Aberdeen Proving ground, and out to about 1000 yards the .276 did as well as the larger calibers.
> >
> >In Vietnam we went to .223, which I think is the sweet spot - smaller loses range and penetration, larger loses ability to carry enough ammo and recoil hurts accuracy for most soldiers. (I recently rewatched Zulu. Those rifles were Martini-Henrys in .577/.450, meaning they were a .577 cartridge case necked down to fire a .450 caliber 480 grain bullet. Recoil had to be extreme with that loading, and the average soldier probably weighed about 140.)
> A couple of comments. Recoil of a 9 pound, black powder, weapon is
> really not severe. The Garand weighed about that weight and I shot on
> the Base Rifle team for a bit and had no problems with "rapid fire"
> with standard issue ammunition. The .577/450 had a muzzle energy of
> about 1,940 ft·lb and the 30-06, 180 gr., about 2,913 ft·lbf
>
> Re the M-16 type. Yes the Infantry "basic load" was about 7 x 30
> rounds = 210 rounds for the M16 and only 80 for the Garand. But on the
> other hand the firing rate for the M16 was ~700 RPM and 40 - 50 RPM
> for the Garand. Sustained fire, disregarding reloading time was about
> 20 seconds for the M16 and 96 seconds for the Garand (:-)
>
> And troops did run out of ammunition. At least one unit of Aussies ran
> out of ammo during the Battle of Long Tan and without U.S. helicopter
> support would have been overrun.
>
> As an aside, I got to know a number of Special Forces troops while at
> Nha Trang - I used to eat in their Mess - and I was told that they
> could "carry any gun they wanted to" and surprisingly a number seemed
> to refer AK-47's.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

I don't know when you were in Vietnam, but in the early years of Vietnam, or the first few years of the M16 being issued, it was not the most reliable weapon. It tended to jam in the jungle, mud, swamp of Vietnam. But later versions were modified and cleaning kits were issued for the rifles and they became more reliable. I have read the AK47 was a very reliable gun that never needed cleaning and just worked forever. It was, is, cheap and simple. Perfect for the Russian army and perfect for all the third world countries using the AK47 today. Rifle hygiene is not a prerogative in many of these places.